Why would an NYT Columnist not get his facts straight when it comes to the salacious Russian dossier story? Bret Stephens is the New York Times columnist in question here. He gets a ton of things exactly wrong in his piece on the dossier.
Just so you know, here is what Wikipedia says about the Editorial stance of the NTY:
The New York Times editorial page is often regarded as liberal. In mid-2004, the newspaper’s then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote that “the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish – but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative
According to Mr. Stephens, you might think that the Russian dossier was correct and verified in every aspect of its charges. That is certainly not the case. Read on for a detailed accounting of his errors.
As Written By Chuck Ross for the Daily Caller:
Bret Stephens, the New York Times columnist, published an op-ed this weekend taking to task “administration apologists” who have been heavily critical lately of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
But Stephens’ piece, “The Sleazy Case Against Mueller’s Probe,” makes numerous factual and logical errors, mostly in his defense of the so-called Steele dossier, the salacious report that accuses the Trump campaign of engaging in a massive campaign collusion conspiracy with the Kremlin.
The article suggests that Stephens, who left the Wall Street Journal for the Times earlier this year, has done little research about the dirty document.
It’s possible he’s never read it.
Stephens downplays the significance of how the dossier came into being — who paid for it, who commissioned it, and who conducted the research.
He pooh-poohs that it was financed by Trump’s opponents at the Clinton campaign and DNC. He also discounts the involvement of Fusion GPS, a political opposition research firm founded by three of Stephens’ former colleagues at…..
KEEP READING THERE IS WAY MORE HERE: